Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Dudani


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to CeX (company). Without deleting it first to allow users to merge content if necessary.  So Why  20:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Dudani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have concerns whether the sources are sufficient to have the subject meet WP:NBIO; deprodded by User:Boleyn (creator) so we are here. He got a few paragraphs on himself in, and a bit more coverage as he was featured in an episode of reality show The Secret Millionaire , but is this sufficient? To me it is still on the low side of required in-depth coverage by multiple independent sources. At best, I can see his bio merged to the reality show page, which could have a list of episodes and its heroes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article now has sources from 3 national, reliable publications and 3 local, reliable publications. As I stated on the article's talk page where I tried to start a discussion yesterday with about this, this would not be a candidate for deletion even if he was non-notable, we should always look for WP:ATD. If non-notable, it would be a choice of merge to his company's article (CeX (company)) or (less likely) to the Channel 4 programme, The Secret Millionaire, where he had a whole episode on him and his philanthropy. Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. You don't list which sources are which. I hope you don't count in your "national, reliable publications". This is half-based on quotes from the subject. Nope, I don't see much quality coverage - this is not a subject fit for an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Which is which, do you mean which are local and which national? The Croydon Guardian, Tottenham Independent and East London Lines are local, and all had full articles on Dudani (two of them had several articles on him actually, I just used one from each as references as the others didn't include much new information in terms of making an encyclopaedia article). The Telegraph, Radio Times and The Guardian are national, reliable publications. The Guardian is a national broadsheet and reliable; the article is based on interviews so yes, it uses quotes from the subjects of the article, but that isn't a concern. The Telegraph is also reliable, though you're right that as it is an announcement in the Telegraph, it is essentially a primary source so doesn't really count towards notability. The Radio Times is a national publication which reviews TV and radio shows, only those that are most of interest. That still leaves 2 national, reliable publications and 3 local newspapers. There was also a lot of coverage in tech publications that I wasn't sure were reliable or not. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Heavy reliance on interviews is a concern, per WP:INTERVIEW. Review of a TV show or episode does not mean the person who appeared in said episode is notable. Etc. I am not impressed by the sources; you as the creator who used them have a different opinion. Let's see if anyone else joins our discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep There are multiple, reliable sources on this man. I'm not sure he meets the criteria for inclusion except those laid out at BASIC and GNG, but the coverage here is sufficient for inclusion in this encyclopaedia. I also fail to understand why this was not a merge proposal; I disagree that any of the pages on the 'Secret Millionaire' would have been suitable, but his company's page would have been, were he non-notable. However, I am satisfied that the sources are of an acceptable standard: not outstanding, but certainly over the bar. MartinJones (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not every CEO / founder is notable, and in this case, the accomplishments do not warrant an encyclopedia article. Sourcing is thing, to the point that the article does not make a particular claim to notability; closer to A7 than to being a notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , why did you vote delete rather than merge/redirect to company as an WP:ATD? Even if you think the sources aren't enough (I'd have to disagree strongly with that), then he is surely a valid search item for someone who has heard of him, through his work as CEO/founder of a notable company or his episode in a notable show. This article geets several hundred views a month. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to CeX (company) where the subject is mentioned. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect as suggested. Altogether trivial coverage, and not enough for an article. But it's a reasonable search term.  DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect seems like a reasonable way to WP:PRESERVE his name as a search topic and individual with a degree of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.